News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Author
Topic: Bad arguments for evolution (Read 12596 times)

Bad arguments for evolution include using the tautology "survival of the fittest". I cite the following to show not only did Darwin use the term, he stated he preferred the term.

"Darwin used the term "natural selection" in his book "On the Origin of Species" but was persuaded that Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" was probably 'more convenient' "http://www.perceptions.couk.com/genes1.html#rst"Darwin did not believe that the environment was producing the variation within the finch populations. He correctly thought that the variation already existed and that nature just selected for the most suitable beak shape and against less useful ones. Darwin and his supporters ultimately described this process as the "survival of the fittest." This is very different from Lamarck's incorrect idea that the environment altered the shape of individuals and that these acquired changes were then inherited."http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

The best twist on this is...The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Originhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.htmlThat is, it doesn't argue that he didn't use it, just that he didn't 'coin' it.

Oddly enough they are recognised as synonymous by talkorigins...when they rebut the claim that "Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring."http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

One book in an effort to defend Darwinism comes up with another bad argument; comparing natural with artificial selection...“From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled “Darwin's Mistakes,” by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.)* That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is.”Robert H Tamarin, (1996) “Principles of Genetics” (5th ed), p571.

the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct

Speaking of birds, I was watching a program about turtles. When they hatch they make their way down to the ocean past a cordon of various birds. The birds simply pick-off whatever turtle happens to be closest. There's no 'seclection of the fittest'/weeding out the weakest. It's pure chance.

the bird kills "survival of the fittest". It grew a wing (for which most of the time it was useless) for millions of years, so that it could fly and survive extinction. it took millions of years to form the wing, if it had that much time, I doubt it was in trouble of becoming extinct

Uh, no. It's now clear that many theropod dinosaurs were feathered, such as Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor, and a front limb with feathers is nothing less than a proto-wing. These front limbs would have been useful for all the functions that theropod front limbs were useful for, and the addition of feathers would have added several functions -- sexual display, thermoregulation, balance, and the ability to glide (much like flying squirrels do today). At no point would the proto-wing have been "useless".

the evolution of man, chimpanzees, monkeys etc... from a past "ape like" neanderthal animal would have to mean that at some point, the amount of chromosones had changed since all of the animals mentioned have different amounts of chromosomes. You cannot say that this change developed slowly during year and years such as the wing because you cannot have 1/3 of a chromosome and then million years later have 2/3s of it and then it eventually appears completely. Scientists have not been able to change the amount of chromosomes in ANY animal or scientific study, without making the resulting creature unable to reproduce.

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

What are you talking about? According to current cladistical understanding, hominids (including neanderthalensis) and apes are a separate lineage from old world monkeys, and apes/old world monkeys are a separate lineage from new world monkeys. The common ancestor of the old world and new world lineages wouldn't have been ape-like at all, but likely would have resembled one of the current prosimians.

Quote

You cannot say that this change developed slowly during year and years such as the wing because you cannot have 1/3 of a chromosome and then million years later have 2/3s of it and then it eventually appears completely.

Actually, you can. You can have odd numbers of chromosomes (chromosomes usually come in pairs), and chromosomes can be of different sizes, and can also split and join together.

Quote

Scientists have not been able to change the amount of chromosomes in ANY animal or scientific study, without making the resulting creature unable to reproduce.

You are utterly incorrect. As a quick example, Przewalski's horses have 33 pairs of chromosomes (66 chromosomes), and domestic horses have 32 pairs (64 chromosomes). The two can easily interbreed, and their offspring have 32.5 pairs of chromosomes (65 chromosomes). The offspring are fertile.

What are you talking about? According to current cladistical understanding, hominids (including neanderthalensis) and apes are a separate lineage from old world monkeys, and apes/old world monkeys are a separate lineage from new world monkeys. The common ancestor of the old world and new world lineages wouldn't have been ape-like at all, but likely would have resembled one of the current prosimians.

I like Neanderthals. They've been moved about from being our ancestors, to being cousins on a dead-end branch, to being so close that they were bred out. But no matter where they put them, they're still happy that the point to evolution. Like saying "We don't know how it happened, but we just know that it did"

They've been moved about from being our ancestors, to being cousins on a dead-end branch, to being so close that they were bred out.

Not quite -- they're still considered a dead-end branch. The current semi-consensus is that humans and neanderthals either couldn't breed, or could but didn't. There does exist one possible hybrid skeleton, but it's disputed whether it's actually a hybrid or an oddly-shaped human. Genetic analysis has shown that humans and neanderthals were quite distinct. It's most likely that neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans.

neanderthals were outcompeted by CROMAGNONS, who interestingly became extinct not toolong after. So, according to you, humans are cromagnons, therefore humans dont exist? many people claim homo sapiens apiens came from cromagnons but people have stated that there is a HUUUUUUUUGE gap between us and them that cannot be explained and no intermediates have been found.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2006, 08:48:37 PM by Sloga »

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

The current semi-consensus is that humans and neanderthals either couldn't breed, or could but didn't. There does exist one possible hybrid skeleton, but it's disputed whether it's actually a hybrid or an oddly-shaped human. Genetic analysis has shown that humans and neanderthals were quite distinct. It's most likely that neanderthals were simply outcompeted by humans.

I make no point about how many adhere to any particular theory. My point is that 'based on the evidence' Neanderthal has been a fit in various places within and without our evolutionary line. In 1986 when I did pre-history there were four mutually exclusive theoriesthe Unilinear School;the Polyphyletic School'the Preneanderthal School; andthe Presapiens School(Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”, p346ff)

These have, I acknowledge, gone to theory-heaven, but new mutually exclusive theories have emerged.

look im not trying to fuel a debate but anyone with enough commonsense can find out that evolution can only be a theory because not enought evidence has been found (especially intermediates). There are many things that dont make sense. evolutionists often claim "it happened, but we cant find proof for it, so just take our word"

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

These have, I acknowledge, gone to theory-heaven, but new mutually exclusive theories have emerged.

Yep. Ain't science grand? The view that Neanderthals were absorbed into the human population is a minority view, though, and losing ground. Certainly humans and Neanderthals were very close genetically, but there just isn't the hard evidence to support a merging of the two lines.

Cro-Magnon is simply the name for the earliest examples of Homo sapiens in Europe. They're not extinct, as a quick look around you will easily demonstrate.

So says talkorigins...Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. .http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

Yep. Ain't science grand? The view that Neanderthals were absorbed into the human population is a minority view, though, and losing ground. Certainly humans and Neanderthals were very close genetically, but there just isn't the hard evidence to support a merging of the two lines.

Ain't evolutionary science grand?

You miss the subtle point. This is simply not a matter of holding one theory and then discarding it when another theory better suits what's known. This is the matter of holding several mutually exclusive theories to all be possible even though all are based on the evidence.

Which is, as noted earlier a way of saying "We don't know how it happened, but we're damn certain that it must have".

FYI the current mutually exclusive theoires I refer to are commonly calleda) the Out of Africa hypothesisand theb) Diregional (aka Multi-regioonal) hypothesis.

"Where do the genes of the Europeans come from? A good, but trivial, answer is: From Africa, like everybody else's genes. Paleontologists agree that the long-term human ancestors, a million years ago or so, dwelt in Africa. There is disagreement, however, about what happened after archaic presapiens humans (Homo erectus) spread over much of the Old World. The anatomically archaic populations of Europe, Northeastern Asia, and Southeastern Asia may have gradually evolved into the modern Homo sapiens sapiens populations inhabiting, respectively, Western Eurasia, East Asia, and Australia; this is the multiregional theory of human evolution (1). On the contrary, the Out-of-Africa theory regards all modern populations as descended from an anatomically modern group that dispersed from Africa less than 200,000 years ago and replaced archaic populations (2). "http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/1/22"One of the great controversies of archaeology surrounds the origins of Homo sapiens sapiens. One group of scholars believes that Homo erectus populations throughout the world evolved independently, first into early Homo sapiens, then into fully modern humans. Thus, the modern geographic populations (races) of the world would have been separated for a long time, perhaps a million years. Most experts take a diametrically opposite view. They hypothesize that Homo sapiens sapiens evolved in Africa sometime between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, then spread to other parts of the Old World. Under this model, modern geographic populations are less than 100,000 years old.2These two models represent extremes, which pit advocates of anatomical continuity against those who believe there was population replacement. Each model is based on the minute study of human fossil remains, but the replacement theory also relies on studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)."http://www.bartleby.com/67/24.html

I have but two books on this, one from each school. One offers a rather telling admission..."The current controversy is largely a reflection of different scientific philosophies, linked to ideas about race through their treatment of variation. But there is more to it. Even if they have no conscious social agenda, scientists are bound by the same preconceptions as everyone else - their social, religious, and educational backgrounds influence their choices of theories and, perhaps more important, their philosophies of science. Karl Popper noted more than once that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, wether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to enthusiastic attempts to disprove them. This philosophy forms the basis of deductive science. But hypothesis do come from somewhere, often the underlying assumptions of society. Moreover, not only the differences in sources of ideas, but also different premises scientists have held about evolution, human nature, God, and how science should be done, have always underscored the controversies about human evolution."Wolpoff, M & Caspari, R, (1997) "Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction", p12.

Now that goes to my point. There's all this evidence that all points to 'evolution', but when you ask 'how?' you get;it could be 'a'it could be 'b'it could be 'c'

Even though 'a', 'b', and 'c' each exclude each other.

If you think this is a problem, then you are unfamiliar with how science works. Disagreement on the origin of modern hominids doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all; the disagreement isn't over the theory, but its application to a specific set of data.

Disagreement on the origin of modern hominids doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all; the disagreement isn't over the theory, but its application to a specific set of data.

I know. That's what I've been saying. All theories are okay providing they fit a naturalistic explanation. And there was you arguing with another person about the strength of all the evidence. What good is 'evidence' 'a' when it's able to be applied to several different theories at once. What's it evidence then for?

Imagine you go to court. Police have accused you of a crime. They're just certain you did it, but aren't sure how you did it. Would you accept a guilty verdict?

You're more than welcome to add comments to the quote from Wolpoff above.

My book on the Out of Africa model* comes up with some really stupid illustrations. There's a picture of a woman who is of African heritage. Next to her is a picture of her done up in make-up to make her appear European, and Asian etc. It is to show how we all are so closely related that we are all the same under the skin (whilst I agree that we are - the illustration in effect suggests that a woman who has make-up applied to look European can be made to look European!)

I am aware how 'science' works. And I am aware how 'evolutionary science' works.

From your postings here, this is far from evident. And you can drop the quotes; "evolutionary science" is just "science", period.

Quote

They're just certain you did it, but aren't sure how you did it. Would you accept a guilty verdict?

If there were evidence showing I did, in fact, do it, then yes. Your books are from 1996 and 1997 -- rather out of date. Wolpoff's is a minority view in the scientific community. And what competing models for hominid evolution has to do with the theory of evolution itself, I have no idea. What is your point in this thread?

If there were evidence showing I did, in fact, do it, then yes. Your books are from 1996 and 1997 -- rather out of date. Wolpoff's is a minority view in the scientific community. And what competing models for hominid evolution has to do with the theory of evolution itself, I have no idea. What is your point in this thread?

More inneudno... there's nothing to suggest that Wolpoff's theory has been replaced. All you have ascertained is that ONE book of his that I have is 10 years old. Still beats debate, hey? And the direct quote I used from Wolpoff was to do with general ideas about the approach to evolution... something you've missedShow me how Wolpoff's ideas have been superseded.

science is based on observation. we have not and cannot observe evolution therefore Darwin's Theory is only a theory, not scientific fact.

It's both a theory and a fact.

Quote

More inneudno... there's nothing to suggest that Wolpoff's theory has been replaced. All you have ascertained is that ONE book of his that I have is 10 years old. Still beats debate, hey? And the direct quote I used from Wolpoff was to do with general ideas about the approach to evolution... something you've missedShow me how Wolpoff's ideas have been superseded.

This is a side issue. I will ask one more time, and then I will leave the thread until you answer: what does the fact that there are competing models of hominid evolution have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?

I will not post in this thread again until you have answered. If you wish, you may consider my further non-participation in this thread a victory; I really don't care. To be honest, I'm sick of beating my head against the wall of scientific ignorance among Orthodox. If there was ever something to tempt me to go back to the Latins, it's the fact that at least some of them seem to have paid attention in Biology 101 instead of huddling in the corner with their hands over their ears.

This is a side issue. I will ask one more time, and then I will leave the thread until you answer: what does the fact that there are competing models of hominid evolution have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?

What has this to do with anything? I've already stated the problem of suggesting many a thing all at once makes for a nonsense; especially as you were brow-beating another person that evolution is true based on the evidences. All you've done is reduced evolution to at least a just-so; it must have happened because it must have - all the evidences point to mutually exclusive views. I've stated this before, why you need me to repeat it I don't know.

I will not post in this thread again until you have answered. If you wish, you may consider my further non-participation in this thread a victory; I really don't care. To be honest, I'm sick of beating my head against the wall of scientific ignorance among Orthodox. If there was ever something to tempt me to go back to the Latins, it's the fact that at least some of them seem to have paid attention in Biology 101 instead of huddling in the corner with their hands over their ears.

I don't care if you don't post again, you seem to be in a huff. What have I said that is incorrect? You've alluded to me not knowing the subject but you've not actually stated anything I've said is false. Thus you're only intent here is to cast innuendo and slur about an opponent; based on nothing.

That's all you've offered against me as debate; innuedno. That I just don't 'get it'. If someone simply submits themselves to science uncritically; just 'accepting' that the answer must be there, then science can not go forward.

As to 'evolutionary science' being different from 'science', I separate the two simply because of other reasons.

One being that most people claim that science follows the scientific method (assuming that there is but one scientific method). In fact there's more than one theory of evolution which you don't seem to realise when you refer to it.

So, if you're all in a huff, that's not my fault. You've waded in here made lots of speculation about other people's knowledge and not backed it up by anything. When I point this out you simply demand that I answer a question I've already pre-empted and then state you won't debate till I answer it. I had hoped to have had a rational debate here.

He may be using a book that is 9 years old for proof, But that doesnt discredit the proof of using Darwin's Theory..which is about how old? dont be a hypocrite. No new evolutionary theories have been printed, they are all stemming off Darwin, which is 100 years old.

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

He may be using a book that is 9 years old for proof, But that doesnt discredit the proof of using Darwin's Theory..which is about how old? dont be a hypocrite. No new evolutionary theories have been printed, they are all stemming off Darwin, which is 100 years old.

I'm amazed that he would pick on the age of a book when the quote I gave from it was about motives for evolution in general. The proofs for this one (of a couple of) mutually exclusive theories was evidenced by several quotes from web-sites.

Do many of you subscribe to a literalistic interpretation of the creation story?

I think it's best summed up like this when the late Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?” (Genesis Creation and Early Man, p69).

Some just 'believe'. "We (Orthodox) believe that the created world itself is a 'mystery' originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the “Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible", the Son “He through whom all things were made”, and the Holy Spirit, the "Creator of life" (zoopion)." http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp

Do many of you subscribe to a literalistic interpretation of the creation story?

You might not get a wide variety of responses, because this is about the 1,047th time this issue has been debated here just in the last year (I'm only exaggerating a little ). The posters on this forum are a mixed bag, with intelligent posters holding to positions ranging from Young Earth Creationism, to a deistic version of ID theory, to Neo-Darwinism.

I am a Young Earth Creationist myself and find the traditional date of "anno mundi" to be perfectly satisfying. I do wonder however, Evolutionists must have some answer to the fact that the Scientific Method must, among other things, be observable and testable to be provable. For any Orthodox Theistic Evolutionists here: How in the world do you observe and conduct experiments on a process that takes millions of years to be discernible? And if experiments can't be performed on it how do you prove it? And if you can't prove it, how can it ever be more than a hypothesis supported by certain presuppossitions? And if it can't be more than a hypothesis- why not just take the Creation account just as it is................?

In addition to the above, recently there has been a missing link- "Tiktaalik rosaea"- discovered. Creationists treat fossils as photographs of species that once existed but may not live anymore while Evolutioists see it as a link in a chain. In this instance, is not a Creationist one who sees a fact without drawing further conclusions? And is not an Evolutionist one who interprets the fact of the creature and then presupposes its ancestry and descendancy the one living by blind faith? I am reminded of the pig's tooth that was extrapolated into "Nebraska Man", for example.............

I am a Young Earth Creationist myself and find the traditional date of "anno mundi" to be perfectly satisfying. I do wonder however, Evolutionists must have some answer to the fact that the Scientific Method must, among other things, be observable and testable to be provable. For any Orthodox Theistic Evolutionists here: How in the world do you observe and conduct experiments on a process that takes millions of years to be discernible? And if experiments can't be performed on it how do you prove it? And if you can't prove it, how can it ever be more than a hypothesis supported by certain presuppossitions? And if it can't be more than a hypothesis- why not just take the Creation account just as it is................?

One of the ways is that they believe in a type of unity of process. If we can observe something now, we presume that it worked like this over a long period of time (there's no basis for this, one just supposes it to be so, and so it is).

And there's also the 'fossil record'. And this is simply evidence that one can interpret any way;In 1870 a Darwinist named Hyatt worked on specimens of ammonites and arranged them Aegoceras (oldest)-Androgynoceras-Liparoceras (youngest)

In 1938 L F Spath looking at the same evidence arranged them Liparoceras (oldest)-Androgynoceras-Aegoceras (youngest)

In 1963 Blockely said that they were all a variation of Androgynoceras, and the range was explained by sexual dimorphism.

All of which Richard Milton says "It is a prime illustration of the infinite elasticity of Darwinian theory: of its ability to interpret the data in any one of a number of completely different ways - even with diametrically opposed conclusions - as long as those ways are consistent with the central belief in Darwinian evolution itself."in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", p113

In addition to the above, recently there has been a missing link- "Tiktaalik rosaea"- discovered. Creationists treat fossils as photographs of species that once existed but may not live anymore while Evolutioists see it as a link in a chain. In this instance, is ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š not a Creationist one who sees a fact without drawing further conclusions? And is not an Evolutionist one who interprets the fact of the creature and then presupposes its ancestry and descendancy the one living by blind faith? I am reminded of the pig's tooth that was extrapolated into "Nebraska Man", for example.............

To be fair to evolutionists the "Nebraska Man" situation was never widely accepted. A better example is "Piltdown Man" which had them fooled for decades

You might not get a wide variety of responses, because this is about the 1,047th time this issue has been debated here just in the last year (I'm only exaggerating a little ). The posters on this forum are a mixed bag, with intelligent posters holding to positions ranging from Young Earth Creationism, to a deistic version of ID theory, to Neo-Darwinism.

Photius gave an interesting principle in his work On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that I think is applicable: we should not condemn someone for something--even in some cases heresy--that was beyond their knowledge. If a 4th century Father affirmed a doctrine that was condemned at a 6th century Council, for example, Photius endorsed "covering" the heretical belief of the 4th century Father. Well, I would say likewise that there is no fault in a 4th or 8th century Church Father holding to a 4th or 8th century understanding of how the universe came to be.

Photius gave an interesting principle in his work On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that I think is applicable: we should not condemn someone for something--even in some cases heresy--that was beyond their knowledge. If a 4th century Father affirmed a doctrine that was condemned at a 6th century Council, for example, Photius endorsed "covering" the heretical belief of the 4th century Father. Well, I would say likewise that there is no fault in a 4th or 8th century Church Father holding to a 4th or 8th century understanding of how the universe came to be.

Are you saying that the Church Fathers who believed in creation (because Jesus did) had no knowledge of this? (It makes for a very good case for a relative truth then). Who knows what other things the Church Fathers said were 'true' that weren't 'true' in an absolute sense?